Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#111

Post by tzs »

eesmith wrote: post #108
tzs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that it is possible to be tricked into raping someone. Rape has a mens rea requirement that the defendant intended for the sex to be non-consensual. Some jurisdictions do subject that to a requirement that the defendant honestly and in good faith believed it was consensual, and that being mistaken about that was a mistake that a reasonable person would have made. If you are tricked into it, you probably…

Statutory rape is generally a strict liability offense, where mens rea is not an allowed defense. One of the common forms of being tricked is when the other person claims to be at least 18 (or rather, at least of the age of consent). Quoting https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-con... : > Historically, statutory rape was a "strict liability" offense, meaning that it didn't matter whether the actor…

Statutory rape would not be applicable because she was 17, which was over the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands in 2001, which was 16. It was changed to 18 by the Child Protection Act of 2002.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#112

Post by eesmith »

tzs wrote: post #111
eesmith wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statutory rape is generally a strict liability offense, where mens rea is not an allowed defense. One of the common forms of being tricked is when the other person claims to be at least 18 (or rather, at least of the age of consent). Quoting https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-con... : > Historically, statutory rape was a "strict liability" offense, meaning that it didn't matter whether the actor…

Statutory rape would not be applicable because she was 17, which was over the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands in 2001, which was 16. It was changed to 18 by the Child Protection Act of 2002.

So what?

Your statement was "Rape has a mens rea requirement that the defendant intended for the sex to be non-consensual"

I pointed out that it is not a blanket statement, and in the US generally the mens rea defense cannot be used in regards to prohibited sex with a minor, including on the US Virgin Islands.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#113

Post by mindslight »

kweinber wrote: post #59
Jonnax wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you have a reasonable discussion? Stallman emailed a big mailing list for a computer science department the following about a child sex trafficking victim: "The reference reports the claim that Minsky had sex with one of Epstein’s harem…Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it). ... We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as en…

If a person has sex with a minor without knowing they are a minor it is a crime. But should they lose their livelihood and reputation if they didn’t know the parts that make it a crime or didn’t commit the coercion themselves? If I buy a car cheaply at auction that was seized as part of a drug-dealing crime and then get busted for having drugs still stashed in the doors, I am now a drug offender. I did not knowingly…

Let's say you knowingly stash the drugs in your car doors and are then arrested, convicted, serve your sentence, and are released. Should you then have the rest of your life extrajudiciously ruined by a group of people who have dedicated their lives to harassing drug dealers because their own kids died of drug overdoses?

Because applying metered justice and preventing ongoing escalating feuds is the entire point of the justice system. We're in this clusterfuck because people don't feel it is working, and they are not wrong. Specifically here, we all expect Epstein's close associates to reliably quash deeper investigation - investigation into their guilt went cold with Epstein's body.

And I'm generally for grassroots direct action, but this frenzy doesn't seem directed towards making up for the failings of the system, but rather scoring points against easy targets for the thrill of it. RMS himself was nowhere near this island, rather he simply had the audacity to question the lynch mob's narrative! With a reaction like this, how can it be said that these pitchforks are in the service of justice?

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#114

Post by prepend »

tzs wrote: post #105
prepend wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape, not cool at all. For Epstein it’s the whole gamut of messed up stuff, also not cool. It seems to me that Stallman is saying that qualifying language is valuable as statutory rape in USVI (and most other jurisdictions) has a much smaller penalty than other forms of sexual assault. So using the same word for Epstein and Minsky is not fair, I think, to their victims. But saying…

> For Minsksy it’s at least statutory rape That's probably not the case. At the time, 2001, the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands was 16. Around the middle of that year the legislature said they wanted to raise it to 18, but I don't think they actually accomplished that until the passage of the Child Protection Act of 2002. (For comparison, it varies from 16 to 18 for US states. 16 in 31 states and DC, 17 in 8…

Oh thanks. I just looked up the current age of consent in USVI and didn’t think to look it up at the time of the event in question.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#115

Post by Sadkov »

mjg59 wrote: post #30
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who run away from something when their feelings get hurt are no great loss to whatever "movement" they're too weak to contribute to. Free Software has much bigger problems than these losers.

I personally know high quality developers who refuse to work on free software projects because of Stallman. It's not a matter of weakness, it's a matter of principle.

The main problem of Free Software (read GPL) is that it is not free, compared to say BSD. It doesn't promote competition and doesn't help small player, as you have to release all changes back under GPL. On the other hand, GPL increases barrier to entry, so big monopolistic players, like Microsoft and governments, win from it, while small indie devs lose.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#116

Post by mikeash »

tzs wrote: post #107
mikeash wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best case scenario for Minsky, if he did have sex with this girl, is that he was tricked into raping her. But RMS isn’t going with that. He’s going with “not rape.”

I'm not sure that it is possible to be tricked into raping someone. Rape has a mens rea requirement that the defendant intended for the sex to be non-consensual. Some jurisdictions do subject that to a requirement that the defendant honestly and in good faith believed it was consensual, and that being mistaken about that was a mistake that a reasonable person would have made. If you are tricked into it, you probably…

Are we talking legally or morally?

Extending your argument, it is probably not possible to trick someone into murdering someone, because murder requires intent. But it’s definitely possible to trick someone into killing someone.

With rape, we don’t have two different words like that. And Stallman doesn’t seem to be limiting himself to a strictly legalistic interpretation of everything.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#117

Post by eesmith »

DanBC wrote: post #97
AstralStorm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but how badly, it depends? What are the worst kinds, what are relatively harmless if any? Does our current handling thereof help or harm? If those questions are not answered, we're flying blind. Also there are some stupid things done like putting 18 y.o. boy in jail for sleeping with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, consensually. Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated resear…

Child sexual abuse is strongly linked to a range of mental illness later on in life. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Someone should do actual not politically correct and not victim culture motivated research. Someone should take a few minutes to read the reams of research that has been written about this rather than parotting NAMBLA discussion points.

I'll add that "harm" doesn't make a difference - lack of consent is what's at issue.

If someone has sex with a woman in a coma, there's no harm to the woman. There's no need for physical force. It's still sexual assault.

Unconscious people, children, and sex slaves are not able to give meaningful consent.

Stallman doesn't appear to understand the role of consent in these laws.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#118

Post by tzs »

mikeash wrote: post #116
tzs wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that it is possible to be tricked into raping someone. Rape has a mens rea requirement that the defendant intended for the sex to be non-consensual. Some jurisdictions do subject that to a requirement that the defendant honestly and in good faith believed it was consensual, and that being mistaken about that was a mistake that a reasonable person would have made. If you are tricked into it, you probably…

Are we talking legally or morally? Extending your argument, it is probably not possible to trick someone into murdering someone, because murder requires intent. But it’s definitely possible to trick someone into killing someone. With rape, we don’t have two different words like that. And Stallman doesn’t seem to be limiting himself to a strictly legalistic interpretation of everything.

I think Stallman was looking at a moralistic interpretation from Minsky's point of view.

Minsky's sex with the Epstein girl was in 2001, several years before Epstein's legal trouble over his sexual practices. She was also over the age of consent at the time in the US Virgin Islands, which was 16 (it did not become 18 until the Child Protection Act of 2002).

So Stallman's argument is that from Minsky's point of view it likely seemed to be a perfectly legal, consensual encounter. Presumably, Epstein was somewhat cautious over letting people know he kept sex slaves, and so would instruct the girls to not go around introducing themselves as his sex slaves to his guests. Thus, Stallman believes that we should not be tossing Minsky in with the people who had sex with Epstein girls knowing it was not consensual.

I've now seen several different places report that Stallman said that the Epstein girls were "entirely willing". What he actually said was

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

He's not saying they were willing. He's saying they probably said they were willing because Epstein would require them to say that. This is an important distinction.

This should not be a controversial statement--if Epstein had sufficient power over someone to force them to have sex with third parties it is very hard to believe that he didn't also have sufficient power over them to tell them to claim they were acting on their own when they did so, or that he was stupid enough not to exercise that power.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#119

Post by gowld »

interfixus wrote: post #46
shagie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci... has a redacted email thread.

For those who might prefer unredacted, here's what Stallman is reported to have said: "The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.Only that they had sex. We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would hav…

The issue in a nutshell, right here: Primary source evidence is downvoted in favor of complaints about fabricated statements made by chopping up sentences and adding different words to them.

Re: It's time to talk about post-RMS Free Software

#120

Post by gowld »

mikeash wrote: post #45
codr7 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To imagine a scenario, sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios. Epstein liked to film his visitors and use the material to blackmail them. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that he ordered his slaves to behave nice and inviting. You should be very careful about drawing lines between what you can and can't think. Once you do that, it doesn't really matter if you call it Religion or Science; you're still ho…

He’s not just imagining a scenario. He’s saying that this is the most likely scenario, and that the fact that she presented as willing makes everything totally cool.

Your repeated false statements in this comments page might be doing your cause more harm than good, since others have posted links and full actual quotations that contradict your statements.
Post reply on HN